Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Lanodantheon 05-19-07, 10:38 PM	One of the key aspects of Eberron is its Pulp-Noir Style. With that style comes dark and stormy nights every night in Sharn, Cheesy Voice-overs by Inquisitves (Or Inquisitives taking dictation) and laxed alignment restrictions in some areas. Alignment in Eberron is a funny thing. The Film Noir influence on Eberron creates an atmosphere that says, "There are many shades of gray; Not black and white" or "There are speckles of evil in everyone" and is reflected in Clerics not being required to be the same alignment as their deity and the Alignment Column in a Monster's write up meaning nothing. But I was thinking there was at least one place that laxed alignment view coulod extend: Prestige Classes. Or more specifically, one class in particular: the Assassin. I think the Assassin PrC in Eberron should have no alignment restriction or at least an updated one to "Any Nongood" and I'll tell you why. In a normal, Traditional D&D context The Assassin is a killer for Hire. Artemis Entreri kills people for money. The context for these assassins is nonexistent, they just are and they kill for money because they can. However, Eberron has a different context, a different frame of reference: The Last War. The Assassins who fought during the Last War were not all mercenaries and cold-blooded Murders. Most of them were Soldiers; Patriots; men and women who fought, killed and died for a cause, for their country. Even if you don't believe in that sort of stuff, the soldiers of the 5 Nations sure did. Even if you think that this doesn't justify giving PC's access to Death Attack, Poison Use and Heartripper, there are some cases I think these laxed restrictions or a new class with these laxed restrictions would be possible. 1. Assassins as a PrC could be redefined from a killer for hire into what I think is more accurate: The Ultimate Practitioner of Espionage. Every element of the class is geared toward what Intelligence agencies collectively call Tradecraft. If I want an agent to go behind enemy lines, infiltrate an evil organization/army and take out key personnel, I wouldn't want a rogue, I want an Assassin or at lest someone with those unique class abilities. The Death Attack ability can cause instant death, but it can also cause paralysis by the choice of the player. Same goes with Poison use. Nothing like a little truth serum in the coffee to perk up that public meeting. :D 2. Ex-Assassins for Hire make great Noirish PC's. Look at Diran Bastiaan from the Blade of the Flame Series and William Munny from Unforgiven. Changing the alignment restriction to Neutral can make for some interesting characters on the precipice of darkness. 3. "No Women, No kids, No Humans" Assassins with a strict moral code would make for interesting characters. Especially if these people won't kill members of their own race. If you want to fight the Valenar or the Dhakaani Empire, or as a member of one of those races, you have to fight your enemies on their terms. The central theme of that character is how much He/She can dehumanize the enemy. What's your opinion on this and what other PrC's could use a Noirish edge in Eberron?
crow04 05-20-07, 03:25 AM	I emphaticly agree. I'd even allow good assains, but limit them to parlyzeing attack rather than death attack.
Shady314 05-20-07, 04:45 AM	Way ahead of you. :) I've already done it with pretty much every PRC. It's a simple matter to change fluff to match your mechanics. Look at Edymnion's Silver Flame Warlock.
Captain_Kobold 05-20-07, 10:55 AM	The Assassin's alignment restrictions are one of the more commonly house-ruled over ones around. The current class seems to only allow evil members for two reasons: In the existing prestige class, the assassin techniques are a carefully guarded secret known only to guilds and organisations of assassins. The entry requirement of killing is to ensure that the prospective member will have no moral compunctions about killing whoever the contract or nation requires. Neither guild nor spy organisations will train a possibly unreliable member in their secret death techniques. Patriots are not neccesarily Evil, but the ones who are willing to kill innocents in order to further the aims of their country generally are. This can be ruled around by widening the knowledge of the class: If every covert organisation has knowledge of these techniques, and allow any member who wants to learn them to do so. You may lose a lot of the flavor, but it could justify taking the class without abiding by the entry requirements. The other reason for the nongood requirement of the prestige class is its focus. Practically every ability, from the spells available to the class, to most of its special abilities concentrate on infiltration and killing. Rogues have less focus: They are the spies capable of most of the facts of tradecraft. Assassins have a similar skill list, but far fewer points to spend on them, and so will be generally less competent unless they specialise in much fewer areas. Assassins make better killers. A person with such a tight focus on simple killing is likely to be of evil alignment. Ultimately, the entry requirements of the Assassin PrC are more due to the flavor of the class than the game balance and so if the flavor is less important in the game, the DM is (as always) free to rule it away. If you have trouble convincing your DM of this, show them the Avenger PrC that was published on the WotC site for April Fools Day: - basically the Assassin class with the Lawful alignment restriction. Even if he spots the date it was put up he may allow it anyway.
Forgivance 05-20-07, 11:46 AM	I personally disagree. The assassin is a killer for hire. It will kill your wife, your child, his own collegue...for coin. That is evil. Oh, he's got morals? It won't kill your wife or child, but your brother, the general of an army or a peasant that someone doesn't like? Than it's lawful evil. The problem here isn't that the assassin is evil. The problem is that you seem to have a sour taste in your mouth over evil. Evil isn't "evil"...evil is the moral ambiguity over a social norm... However, with my argument, why isn't a common soldier evil? They will kill an enemy of the state because they are told to (or for money, even though I wouldn't call 3 gold a month money). The differance is that the soldier does it strictly for patriotic and protective purposes. They don't want to loose their land, they enjoy their current rulers, they fear change. The assassin is doing it because he doesn't care what-so-ever about anything else but making money from kill (no matter the personal morals he has set up so he can sleep better at night). So, how do you get a super-spy that isn't evil and is trained for combat? Well, first off, James Bond was not neutral nor good :) Second off, if you were going to, you would just makes up one, or use the same template as assassin and change the name. Assassin = killer for hire (does not translate to patriot of the state)... Otherwise, there is no reason you cannot do what you want with your game. But again, to call a sniper an assassin is a mistake; to think an assassin won't be hired against you because of morals, it's also a mistake (money is king).
Rechan 05-20-07, 12:02 PM	Not bad. I am curious how you would take the alignment restriction off a Blackguard.
Arandmoor 05-20-07, 02:00 PM	I personally disagree. The assassin is a killer for hire. It will kill your wife, your child, his own collegue...for coin. That is evil. Oh, he's got morals? It won't kill your wife or child, but your brother, the general of an army or a peasant that someone doesn't like? Than it's lawful evil. The problem here isn't that the assassin is evil. The problem is that you seem to have a sour taste in your mouth over evil. Evil isn't "evil"...evil is the moral ambiguity over a social norm... However, with my argument, why isn't a common soldier evil? They will kill an enemy of the state because they are told to (or for money, even though I wouldn't call 3 gold a month money). The differance is that the soldier does it strictly for patriotic and protective purposes. They don't want to loose their land, they enjoy their current rulers, they fear change. The assassin is doing it because he doesn't care what-so-ever about anything else but making money from kill (no matter the personal morals he has set up so he can sleep better at night). So, how do you get a super-spy that isn't evil and is trained for combat? Well, first off, James Bond was not neutral nor good :) Second off, if you were going to, you would just makes up one, or use the same template as assassin and change the name. Assassin = killer for hire (does not translate to patriot of the state)... Otherwise, there is no reason you cannot do what you want with your game. But again, to call a sniper an assassin is a mistake; to think an assassin won't be hired against you because of morals, it's also a mistake (money is king). What makes an "assassin" evil is not the fact that he kills. If it were as simple as that then every adventurer in D&D would be evil and choosing an alignment would be a mere choice between law, chaos, and neutrality. What makes an assassin evil is placing a price on the life of another for nothing more than personal gain. The bit in italics is important. What could possibly set a government killer apart? Well, first is the side of the conflict you're on. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. What's more important I think, is a combination of what he's fighting for, where he's fighting, and his means of fighting. It's a fine balance, and such characters will always find themselves walking a fine line. Like a paladin, however, this would be part of the draw to the PrC in this situation. At what point are you no better than the monster's you're fighting? Also, don't confuse a member off the assassin's guild, a true hired killer, for a government agent. There are worlds of differences between them. Just because the PrC says the character must be a part of the guild doesn't mean he has to in order to take levels in the PrC. That's the GM's call. Who says the assassin's guild specified by the PrC even exists in the campaign? Just like any PrC the assassin class is a collection of tools. The problem is that it's a tool set that PCs usually can't access due to the alignment restriction. Why not change it? Should we have to change the name? It might help. However, this would be a cosmetic change at best. Does it even matter? IMO not really. Just because a character has levels in the assassin PrC doesn't mean he goes around killing small children for money. Characters don't have their classes tatooed on their foreheads for everyone to see. Giving a character a few levels in Assassin could easily be a way to say "he's a rogue-like character who's less flexable but better at killing". At the end of the day it's just a PrC. Honestly, what makes the Assassin PrC, in itself, evil? Death Blow? Every character in the game kills. It's what you do in D&D. Is it because the ability needs to be used from surprise? I don't think so. You know what surprise means to your average group of adventurers? Little more than a few less healing spells needed from the priest. Is it the 3 rounds of observation? I don't think so, otherwise so-called good adventurers wouldn't be able to plan out attacks when they got the drop on their enemies and would be required to rush into everything blindly to keep with the tenints of "goood". Maybe it's the poison use! Nope...poison in itself isn't evil. Sorry. It's a tool just like that longsword your paladin's got. You know the one...his +5 Holy Avenger. Honestly, I'm running out of ideas here. Maybe the assassin PrC is evil...just because? If it is then there is no reason we couldn't remove the "just because" bit and make it a bit more flexible. Also, James Bond is most definitely good. Obviously not lawful, but most definitely a good-guy.
Toloran 05-20-07, 02:00 PM	EDIT: I deleted my post because Arandmoor said it far better then I could. :) Assassins only have the evil requirement because when on thinks of assassins they think of Lee Harvey Oswald and the JFK assassination or the John Wilkes Booth and the Lincoln assassination. They don't think of the attempted assassinations of Fidel Castro by the CIA during the Cold War or the Assassination of Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto during WWII by the US military.
Rechan 05-20-07, 04:03 PM	They don't think of the attempted assassinations of Fidel Castro by the CIA during the Cold War or the Assassination of Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto during WWII by the US military. Just because it's "patriotic" does not make it alignment-proof. Many evil things have been done in the name of country. Also, what's the difference between Killing someone for personal gain, and killing someone for the gain of your organization? The government is an organization. Is murdering someone in their sleep because your government opposes the politics of the opposing country good? How is it acceptable to murder someone if they don't fall in line with your organization, or it would be a benefit to your organization? And how is that different than doing it because you want some GP? Using Castro as the example, the only time he's been a true threat to the US was the Cuban Missile crisis - otherwise, he has just been a dictator in his own country. The US has supported dictators to convince them to reject communism. To put this in Eberron terms, it would not be a Good act for Thrane to invade Karnath because Karnath animates dead/worships Undeath/has a vampire for a king. None of those things directly threatens Thrane, Karnath is not currently threatening Thrane, but Thrane is attacking Karnath because of their actions within their own borders. If Thrane sent assassins after necromancers, or Kaius, or whoever, it would still be a non-Good act. And, do we really want to start bringing RL examples into a debate of good vs. evil? Because that's going to get ugly, real fast. Politics and alignment debates do not end well, especially because lots of these situations are gray. There is never a clear cut Good vs. Evil. To demonstrate this, let's go with the obvious: Nazi Germany. Everyone agrees the Nazis were evil, but your average German soldier fighting in WWII was not evil - he had no part in the actions of the government, he was just fighting on Germany's side. You could suggest that the act of invading another country is evil, but that decision was made by the leader of the country - is the following of that order (i.e. fighting in a war that is not directly a defensive position) evil? Is executing criminals Evil? Depending on your beliefs of Justice and what is Right, it's yes or no. If you say yes, then the government is evil because it employs it (if no other reason than under the case of Treason), but then does that not also make the executioner (the one who pulls the switch) evil, because he is murdering someone for money (it's his job)? If you say No, how can you say that killing a defenseless individual (at the time of execution they are chained and heavily guarded) not evil? How about the judge that sentences the criminal to execution? How about the lawyers that defend and prosecute, because their actions have lead to the criminal's execution? How about the jury that gave the verdict that lead to the judge sentencing execution? And so on. Back to the Assassin: 1) The assassin does it out of pre-meditation. He's going somewhere with the expressed intent to kill a target for the purposes of killing him. The target is not a threat to him. His GOAL is the target's death. Adventurers can employ any means to get their goal, and those means do not necessarily mean death - after all, a wizard could teleport in and steal the McGuffin, the rogue could sneak in and steal the McGuffin, the Monk could tumble in and stun/non-lethal beat everyone into submission before getting the McGuffin, the priest casts Hold Person and gets the McGuffin. The assassin's role is to kill. 2) The issue is not that the assassin is evil because he does what adventurers do, but that adventurers are considered good for what they do. Killing the cultists about to summon the demon that will destroy the city is one thing. Kicking in the door to the home of monsters that do nothing for the express purpose of looting the dungeon is another. PCs assume that they're killing things that are evil - after all, that's why the stereotype is to invade a Red dragon's cave, because red dragons are evil and killing evil things is good. Except that killing something just because it's evil is not a good act, at least in my opinion. The only reason Alignment is in the game is to pay lip service to the notion of Good vs. Evil, it's a sacred cow, and that it functions for certain game mechanics (Good weapons and spells like Desecrate).
Cifer 05-20-07, 05:39 PM	1) The assassin does it out of pre-meditation. He's going somewhere with the expressed intent to kill a target for the purposes of killing him. The target is not a threat to him. His GOAL is the target's death. Adventurers can employ any means to get their goal, and those means do not necessarily mean death - after all, a wizard could teleport in and steal the McGuffin, the rogue could sneak in and steal the McGuffin, the Monk could tumble in and stun/non-lethal beat everyone into submission before getting the McGuffin, the priest casts Hold Person and gets the McGuffin. The assassin's role is to kill. Try applying that reasoning to classes like the Warmage, who is pretty much built around damage dealing spells. 2) The issue is not that the assassin is evil because he does what adventurers do, but that adventurers are considered good for what they do. Killing the cultists about to summon the demon that will destroy the city is one thing. Kicking in the door to the home of monsters that do nothing for the express purpose of looting the dungeon is another. PCs assume that they're killing things that are evil - after all, that's why the stereotype is to invade a Red dragon's cave, because red dragons are evil and killing evil things is good. Except that killing something just because it's evil is not a good act, at least in my opinion. Your point is...? I fail to see how soldiers and governmental spies/assassins are any different. Both are essentially tools enabling their superiors to use lethal force to achieve their goals, whatever those might be.
Rechan 05-20-07, 05:55 PM	Try applying that reasoning to classes like the Warmage, who is pretty much built around damage dealing spells. And they are doing damage on a battlefield. A Battle is a neutral situation. Warmages are not attacking unaware targets in their beds, they are unloading artillery onto armed batallions. Using your reasoning, this also makes the drivers of tanks Evil because they use tanks to kill, and therefore they are evil. Your point is...? That many things PCs do are evil, even if it's claimed as good. I fail to see how soldiers and governmental spies/assassins are any different. Both are essentially tools enabling their superiors to use lethal force to achieve their goals, whatever those might be. Which is my point. Either governments and soldiers are evil, or they are not. Because any argument that can be used against an assassin can be used against a soldier or government - just as you did above with a warmage.
Arandmoor 05-20-07, 06:00 PM	Just because it's "patriotic" does not make it alignment-proof. Many evil things have been done in the name of country. Also, what's the difference between Killing someone for personal gain, and killing someone for the gain of your organization? The government is an organization. Is murdering someone in their sleep because your government opposes the politics of the opposing country good? How is it acceptable to murder someone if they don't fall in line with your organization, or it would be a benefit to your organization? And how is that different than doing it because you want some GP? The difference is all in the specifics of the target. Are you killing them just because they don't fall in line with the beliefs/policies of your government or because leaving them alive will mean the deaths of thousands in the immediate future? Once again, the good vs. evil debate comes down to this: an evil assassin will put a price tag on the life of another and kill them for nothing more then material gain. Back to the Assassin: 1) The assassin does it out of pre-meditation. He's going somewhere with the expressed intent to kill a target for the purposes of killing him. The target is not a threat to him. His GOAL is the target's death. Adventurers can employ any means to get their goal, and those means do not necessarily mean death - after all, a wizard could teleport in and steal the McGuffin, the rogue could sneak in and steal the McGuffin, the Monk could tumble in and stun/non-lethal beat everyone into submission before getting the McGuffin, the priest casts Hold Person and gets the McGuffin. The assassin's role is to kill. Oh please. When was the last time your group ever didn't kill something for any other reason than "it's easier to let him live"? How often does that happen vs. just killing them and getting it over with? If premeditation is the only prerequisite then every adventuring group who has ever successfully gone dragon-hunting (and not had the DM stack the situation in their favor) is technically evil by your definition. Planning an attack = premeditation 2) The issue is not that the assassin is evil because he does what adventurers do, but that adventurers are considered good for what they do. Killing the cultists about to summon the demon that will destroy the city is one thing. Kicking in the door to the home of monsters that do nothing for the express purpose of looting the dungeon is another. PCs assume that they're killing things that are evil - after all, that's why the stereotype is to invade a Red dragon's cave, because red dragons are evil and killing evil things is good. Except that killing something just because it's evil is not a good act, at least in my opinion. Which means that the status of "evil" so far as characters with the assassin PrC go is subjective to each individual case. Whether or not a character is evil is purely between the character and the player playing him/her. PCs are the good guys based solely on the fact that they're the main characters of the game, and are suposed to be the good guys for the most part. So long as they don't do anything obviously evil, they're assumed to be good. So why are characters with level in Assassin any different? The "Any Evil" requirement is stupid, easily Rule Zero'd, and will easily fit into a more film-noirish game.
Arandmoor 05-20-07, 06:05 PM	Oh, and before I forget... I changed my mind from before. Bond is actually Lawful Good. Does he seem chaotic? Yes. Is he? No. Why? Because thinking outside the box, blowing stuff up, and killing the bad guys is what he is suposed to do. His government trained him to do it, and it's what he's expected to do. He's got a licence to kill for crying out loud! Now, if you want an example of a similar character that would lean more towards Chaotic Good go look at Jack Bauer from 24. While quite a bit more of a toss-up, he regularly demonstrates a willingness to defy direct orders and do what he things is best despite opposition from his superiors. While Bond occassionally does the same, I think the fact that pushes Bauer over to the side of chaos is the fact that he's willing to directly violate things like the US Bill of Rights and the Geneva Convention, and get permission after the fact if his actions get discovered (torturing prisoners for information for example...he's quite good at it). Jack Bauer is almost like having a bad guy working on our side...
Rechan 05-20-07, 06:07 PM	The difference is all in the specifics of the target. Are you killing them just because they don't fall in line with the beliefs/policies of your government or because leaving them alive will mean the deaths of thousands in the immediate future? By that same logic you could murder a noble who exercises high taxes and steal all their gold, giving it to the poor, because by their act of hoarding the gold, they are forcing the poor from dieing of starvation in the near future. The government pays the assassin's price-tag. So the assassin is benefiting? Oh please. When was the last time your group ever didn't kill something for any other reason than "it's easier to let him live"? How often does that happen vs. just killing them and getting it over with? If premeditation is the only prerequisite then every adventuring group who has ever successfully gone dragon-hunting (and not had the DM stack the situation in their favor) is technically evil by your definition. It would, yes. Because that's my stance. PCs are the good guys based solely on the fact that they're the main characters of the game, and are suposed to be the good guys for the most part. So long as they don't do anything obviously evil, they're assumed to be good. That's a stupid assumption. The Punisher is evil, plain and simple, but he is the star of his comic book. But by your rules, since he is the star of his comic book, he is assumed good. Everyone is the star of their own lives, after all. PCs are assumed good because the majority of people play good PCs. But their acts, as proved above, are evil, therefore all PCs are evil unless specifically acted otherwise.
Rechan 05-20-07, 06:11 PM	Why? Because thinking outside the box, blowing stuff up, and killing the bad guys is what he is suposed to do. His government trained him to do it, and it's what he's expected to do. He's got a licence to kill for crying out loud! By that logic, if a government trained someone to go into a village and kill everyone in their sleep, then that would make him Lawful Good because he's following his orders and because his good government trained him to do it and gave him a liscence to wantonly slaughter people in their beds. If anything, Bond is lawful neutral.
Shady314 05-20-07, 06:27 PM	An "assassin" can be changed fluff-wise and use the same mechanics to be just like the Dread Commando. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20050407b&page=6 Who has no alignment restriction. What is the real moral difference between Death Attack and Sudden Strike? Death Attack If an assassin studies his victim for 3 rounds and then makes a sneak attack with a melee weapon that successfully deals damage, the sneak attack has the additional effect of possibly either paralyzing or killing the target (assassin’s choice). Sudden Strike If you can catch an opponent when she is unable to defend herself effectively from your attack, you can strike a vital spot for extra damage. Whenever your target is denied her Dexterity bonus to AC against your attack (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus to Armor Class or not), you deal an extra 1d6 points of damage with your attack. The extra damage increases to 2d6 at 3rd level and to 3d6 at 5th level. The studying for 3 rounds? You can watch a sentry from your camouflaged position for 3 rounds and then pounce. How's that immoral? People get hung up on the name. And yes the assassin of the DMG must definitely be evil. But if we change the fluff... If your targets are all people that have knowingly chosen actions that put a target on themselves then you can squeak by with good. Poisoning the officers of a regiment's meal before a battle. Assassinating the enemy wizard in an opposing unit while he sleeps so he can't fling fireballs at your troops the next day etc. Killing the lord of a keep that is under siege and thus breaking it quickly. Or would good people prefer letting your army starve the people inside including innocent civilians till they surrender? Most of what's good is what is sanctioned by society. An assassin that slits your throat is bad while a sniper that shoots you from a mile away with a .50 cal rifle that turns your head into a fine mist is ok?
Rechan 05-20-07, 06:30 PM	An "assassin" can be changed fluff-wise and use the same mechanics to be just like the Dread Commando. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20050407b&page=6 Who has no alignment restriction. What is the real moral difference between Death Attack and Sudden Strike (Ex): If you can catch an opponent when she is unable to defend herself effectively from your attack, you can strike a vital spot for extra damage. Whenever your target is denied her Dexterity bonus to AC against your attack (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus to Armor Class or not), you deal an extra 1d6 points of damage with your attack. The extra damage increases to 2d6 at 3rd level and to 3d6 at 5th level. One kills them if they fail their save, the other just does damage. Why take the Death Attack out at all? Why care that it's called Death Attack? After all, aren't all PCs just trying to kill the other guy? Why be squeamish about it?
taski 05-20-07, 07:09 PM	When you delve into the Noir aspects of Eberron, the game stops being about Good versus Evil, but about the grayer areas of "our guys" versus "their guys," with some of their guys infiltrating us and some of our guys just out for themselves and some of their guys sympathetic to our cause. In essence, it's complicated. That's the point of Noir. Morality is opaque, something we poor saps on the ground have to muddle though. There are no easy answers. There is no beacon of truth; we are in the dark. That is the Noir atmosphere. In the game, you can even reach a point where the answers alignment provides are a hindrance to the Noir atmosphere of moral disorientation. That's why I don't use alignment in my own game (which admittedly focuses far more on the Noir aspects of Eberron than the Pulp ones). You can have complete faith in your cause, believe that all your actions are justified, and I won't tell you otherwise. About the assassin PrC, I see PrCs as being sets of mechanics whose flavor is easily mutable. Khyber, even the mechanics are mutable. An assassin may belong to a mercenary organization, just out for coin; or a government spy out for his country's safety; or a serial killer enjoying his gruesome hobby... hmm, there's an idea... :plotting:
Rechan 05-20-07, 07:32 PM	When you delve into the Noir aspects of Eberron, the game stops being about Good versus Evil, but about the grayer areas of "our guys" versus "their guys," with some of their guys infiltrating us and some of our guys just out for themselves and some of their guys sympathetic to our cause. In essence, it's complicated. That's the point of Noir. Morality is opaque, something we poor saps on the ground have to muddle though. There are no easy answers. There is no beacon of truth; we are in the dark. Infact, the qualities of old Noir movies is depression. You're fighting a losing battle, you're going to be betrayed, and you're going to have to sacrifice a lot of things, and eventually are going to die. It's a very Not Happy thing and Good rarely wins. About the assassin PrC, I see PrCs as being sets of mechanics whose flavor is easily mutable. Khyber, even the mechanics are mutable. An assassin may belong to a mercenary organization, just out for coin; or a government spy out for his country's safety; or a serial killer enjoying his gruesome hobby... hmm, there's an idea... :plotting: You forgot Monster Killer. I could see the Silver Flame or the Kalasthar employing Assassins. In either case, they are delving into enemy territory to make surgical strikes - in one case, evil monsters like lycanthropes, undead, hags, etc, and the other killing Inspired and their agents without bringing the whole house on their heads. After all, monsters can live in cities, behind the scenes, just like the Inspired do - and sometimes it's necessary to whack them without sieging the place.
AllWillFall2Me 05-20-07, 07:34 PM	If anything, Bond is lawful neutral. Funnily, I was going to "argue" your stance on Bond not being Neutral or Good by stating that WoTC says he's Lawful Neutral. It was going to be a vaguely lighthearted jest. But the focus: Using Evil means in the pursuit of Good ends is Neutral. Killing an officer in his sleep is more un-Lawful than it is un-Good. If the options are fight his platoon, killling men on both sides, or take out the leader, it is possibly justifiably more good to just kill him. If you could duel him in forn of his men in daylight, there'd be no question. But sometimes bad guys don't follow rules like that. So you play their game against them. As a note, I would also state the Punisher is LN, with tendencies toward evil. He exercises his judgement, and viciously attacks evil. The severity of his means mean nothing. He is attacking men who have done evil, and punishing them. If he was good, he would offer them mercy and a chance of redemption, but he isn't. He enacts retribution finally. That is neutral. He is unconcerned with moral qualms in his defeat of evil, but he does not harm innocents in his pursuit of Punishment. If he did that, he would be evil.
Rechan 05-20-07, 07:49 PM	But the focus: Using Evil means in the pursuit of Good ends is Neutral. Killing an officer in his sleep is more un-Lawful than it is un-Good. If the options are fight his platoon, killling men on both sides, or take out the leader, it is possibly justifiably more good to just kill him. If you could duel him in forn of his men in daylight, there'd be no question. But sometimes bad guys don't follow rules like that. So you play their game against them. I can buy that. As a note, I would also state the Punisher is LN, with tendencies toward evil. He exercises his judgement, and viciously attacks evil. The severity of his means mean nothing. He is attacking men who have done evil, and punishing them. If he was good, he would offer them mercy and a chance of redemption, but he isn't. He enacts retribution finally. That is neutral. He is unconcerned with moral qualms in his defeat of evil, but he does not harm innocents in his pursuit of Punishment. If he did that, he would be evil. Yes, he does harm innocents. As one example, he was dealing with a corporation that was doing Bad Things. His solution? Wait until the Entire Company got on a yacht for a party, and then blow the yacht out of the water. Of course there were innocent people on that boat (the secretaries wern't evil, the people in the mail room wern't evil, the caterers at the party wern't evil, the wives of the executives wern't evil, various investors and members of the press/whatever wern't evil) but they all died. Another example, he received help from an inner city kid in taking out some gang members. WHen all of the gang were dead, the kid said "Yeah! They're gone! Now there's no one to stop me!" Then he looked at the Punisher and said, "Just kidding." The Punisher said "Why chance it?" and killed him.
Shady314 05-21-07, 04:06 AM	One kills them if they fail their save, the other just does damage. :D You're forgetting that the sudden strike could easily kill some poor level 2 warrior fighting for Breland (The assassin is just even better at hitting the vital organ.) and pulling guard duty on a supply wagon. :D Probably has a family back home. Probably just around 18 years old. At least the assassin can choose to paralyze the poor bastard. The dread commando can ONLY hurt him. Yet one has an alignment restriction and the other doesn't. Weird. Why take the Death Attack out at all? Why care that it's called Death Attack? After all, aren't all PCs just trying to kill the other guy? Why be squeamish about it? ? I'm not saying it should be taken out or renamed. I was just trying to point out why death attack is nothing more than a souped up sneak attack, or sudden strike or ANY attack that relies on ambushing/completely surprising your opponent so they cannot defend themselves. And why alignments can be changed for classes if you change flavor enough. The assassin can easily be played JUST like the dread commando. And if the dread commando can be played without alignment restrictions so can assassins.
Shady314 05-21-07, 04:11 AM	If you could duel him in forn of his men in daylight, there'd be no question. I'd question it. Especially their intelligence. :) Why put yourself at risk or risk the demoralization of your men when you don't have to? That's just bad leadership. Can you imagine soldiers of our time calling their enemies out to face to face showdowns? They'd be considered idiots or suicidal. You don't get on a megaphone and order your enemies to vacate a building they're holed up in or you're coming in! You come in when it's dark and you have night vision goggles and throw smoke grenades and kick in doors etc. The element of surprise is not "evil". Edit: Oh and yes the Punisher is the perfect example of an evil person pursuing good ends with ruthless and evil means. He delights in "punishing" (hence the name) those he sees as evil. His name is pretty much a dead giveaway towards his motivations. He is also clearly not lawful. Rechan you seem to be pretty familiar with him whereas I am not so much. Aren't his punishments usually pretty disproportionate to the actual crime. He seems to kill EVERYONE whether the law says death should be the punishment or not.
Rechan 05-21-07, 08:14 AM	At least the assassin can choose to paralyze the poor bastard. The dread commando can ONLY hurt him. Yet one has an alignment restriction and the other doesn't. Weird. Not completely true. Rogues can use their sneak attacks to do subdual damage. I didn't see any limitations in the Sudden Attack that said that Dread Commandos couldn't either. You could likely sap them in the back of the head and knock them out in one blow if you're good. As to the rest, oh, okay. I guess I wasn't seeing the dungeon for the traps. :D I agree that Death Attack and Sneak attack are basically the same thing with slightly different mechanics and fluff. Edit: Oh and yes the Punisher is the perfect example of an evil person pursuing good ends with ruthless and evil means. He delights in "punishing" (hence the name) those he sees as evil. His name is pretty much a dead giveaway towards his motivations. He is also clearly not lawful. Rechan you seem to be pretty familiar with him whereas I am not so much. Aren't his punishments usually pretty disproportionate to the actual crime. He seems to kill EVERYONE whether the law says death should be the punishment or not. My father recently downloaded and read some of the Punisher comics (he's an aspiring comic book artist), and he was talking about it. The Punisher is not just ruthless, but excessively cruel too - he's not above torture. Such as when he kept throwing a woman against bulletproof glass, then took the glass out with a grenade and threw her out of it - and down several floors. I don't Believe she was trying to kill him at the time, but I can check.
Captain_Kobold 05-21-07, 08:15 AM	As a swift possible derailment (with apologies to the OP). Could I just ask why people seem to be so set on playing that precise prestige class? This is by no means the first thread querying whether you could ignore the alignment restrictions and entry requirement of the Assassin class. As long as you do murder for an employer/client/your country, you can call yourself an assassin, without having to take levels in the class, so it can't just be a flavor or roleplayimng thing. Is the Assassin class particularly more powerful? In terms of what capabilities it can bring to the party, it seems to lag behind classes like the Rogue. The death attack is rather circumstantial, and in Eberron, a high-level sneak attack is likely to kill most people from sheer damage. Poison use can be handy, but again: not used consistently. Most of the spells seem to be designed to give a little more killing power, or to compensate for skills that the class may have fewer ranks in. So just what is the attraction?
Cifer 05-21-07, 09:35 AM	So just what is the attraction? I'd guess it's the same attraction that makes people favor a bard over a sorcerer/rogue/fighter. It's practical to sometimes just use the exact class designed for your character idea (killing or disabling people when they are unaware of you) instead of puzzling it together.
Shady314 05-21-07, 05:25 PM	Not completely true. Rogues can use their sneak attacks to do subdual damage. I didn't see any limitations in the Sudden Attack that said that Dread Commandos couldn't either. You could likely sap them in the back of the head and knock them out in one blow if you're good. The sap would be a good point but an assassin can use a sap too. So the sap is not why the assassin is evil and the dread commando is good. :) All that makes an assassin evil is the fluff. It's mechanics are easily kept while changing the fluff. @Captain Kobold. Cifer hit the nail on the head. In the assassin case I personally think the death attack mechanics are exactly what many people are looking for with an assassin type character. So they want to use it just for that but have no intention of using it on innocents or even playing an evil character and so they ask how feasible it is to change the class.
taski 05-21-07, 07:12 PM	Infact, the qualities of old Noir movies is depression. You're fighting a losing battle, you're going to be betrayed, and you're going to have to sacrifice a lot of things, and eventually are going to die. It's a very Not Happy thing and Good rarely wins. That's true, too. Though I think part of it is that when you think you've won, you're not sure you're good anymore. Part of the depressing theme is that uncertainty, to me anyway. You forgot Monster Killer. I could see the Silver Flame or the Kalasthar employing Assassins. In either case, they are delving into enemy territory to make surgical strikes - in one case, evil monsters like lycanthropes, undead, hags, etc, and the other killing Inspired and their agents without bringing the whole house on their heads. After all, monsters can live in cities, behind the scenes, just like the Inspired do - and sometimes it's necessary to whack them without sieging the place. Yeah, it wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list. Here's another. When a cult of personality arises around a despicable person, the duped followers are not always despicable themselves. Paralyze, knock out and turn in the leader, and the other cultists might be persuaded to come to their senses and return to a sane, productive life. That requires a surgical strike, and absolutely no killing at all. With a warrant, license, or whatever, even a lawful good agent of the watch could do this, and the mechanics of the assassin class would serve him particularly well. A minor flavor tweak is all that's needed: the organization that teaches these techniques is more akin to the FBI academy than the original and somewhat vague "assassin's guild." For extra fun, the DM gets the chance to flesh out a new helpful organization rife with plot hooks. :)
Rechan 05-21-07, 07:25 PM	The sap would be a good point but an assassin can use a sap too. So the sap is not why the assassin is evil and the dread commando is good. :) All that makes an assassin evil is the fluff. It's mechanics are easily kept while changing the fluff. Well in all honesty I think the assassin is evil because of the silly alignment rules and because "the assassin is a badguy!!!" ;)
Shady314 05-22-07, 04:08 AM	Well in all honesty I think the assassin is evil because of the silly alignment rules and because "the assassin is a badguy!!!" ;) So we agree. Huzzah!
Arandmoor 05-23-07, 02:37 AM	By that same logic you could murder a noble who exercises high taxes and steal all their gold, giving it to the poor, because by their act of hoarding the gold, they are forcing the poor from dieing of starvation in the near future. Then the distinction between good and evil would be in his motivations for killing the noble. If the noble deserved it and the assassin was playing Robbin Hood then he's not much different from your average PC playing free-the-peasents. Now, if the assassin killed the guy just to kill him... The government pays the assassin's price-tag. So the assassin is benefiting? Even hired killers have to eat. There's a difference between having levels in the Assassin PrC, and actually making a living as a professional killer-for-hire. It would, yes. Because that's my stance. Must be hard to find good PCs in your games then. At least it would be in every game I've ever played in. That's a stupid assumption. The Punisher is evil, plain and simple, but he is the star of his comic book. But by your rules, since he is the star of his comic book, he is assumed good. Everyone is the star of their own lives, after all. PCs are assumed good because the majority of people play good PCs. But their acts, as proved above, are evil, therefore all PCs are evil unless specifically acted otherwise. The punisher is a psycho. I was making a fairly general statement to the effect that in most cases the PCs are suposed to be the "good guys". This state of being does not necessarily require being good on the alignment chart. By that logic, if a government trained someone to go into a village and kill everyone in their sleep, then that would make him Lawful Good because he's following his orders and because his good government trained him to do it and gave him a liscence to wantonly slaughter people in their beds. Yay...another exception to a general statement. That'll show me to expect people to read what I mean rather than what I write. Anyway...in your example of the extreme you're undermining my origional assumptions by assuming an evil government (or at least evil person calling the shots). I was assuming at least a neutral employer (assuming employmment of some kind) that would actually allow for a professional killer who could live by a higher moral code (at least as high as someone who kills for a living can claim). For example...if an assassin were to ply his trade to take out enemies of society who were actively trying to kill innocents, and were themselves not innocent, you could easily have an assassin who was well within the good portion of the alignment chart. If anything, Bond is lawful neutral. I still say he's good. Using Evil means in the pursuit of Good ends is Neutral. Killing an officer in his sleep is more un-Lawful than it is un-Good. Even if that's a quote from the RAW I'm going to disagree. Neutral means neutral. It doesn't mean playing ***-for-tat on the alignment scale. If you're using evil means to do something good you need to choose: are you good or evil? Also, if you're good, you had better have a damn good reason to be employing evil means for your ends. I'll give Jack Baure from 24 as an example of evil means for good ends. But he's an exception. As a rule, if you enjoy the evil means it doesn't matter what your ends are. You're evil...or crazy... As a swift possible derailment (with apologies to the OP). Could I just ask why people seem to be so set on playing that precise prestige class? This is by no means the first thread querying whether you could ignore the alignment restrictions and entry requirement of the Assassin class. As long as you do murder for an employer/client/your country, you can call yourself an assassin, without having to take levels in the class, so it can't just be a flavor or roleplayimng thing. Is the Assassin class particularly more powerful? In terms of what capabilities it can bring to the party, it seems to lag behind classes like the Rogue. The death attack is rather circumstantial, and in Eberron, a high-level sneak attack is likely to kill most people from sheer damage. Poison use can be handy, but again: not used consistently. Most of the spells seem to be designed to give a little more killing power, or to compensate for skills that the class may have fewer ranks in. So just what is the attraction? Personally I think it's just a matter of jealous-kid syndrome. Being an evil-required PrC you can't usually take it.
Rechan 05-23-07, 03:37 AM	Then the distinction between good and evil would be in his motivations for killing the noble. If the noble deserved it and the assassin was playing Robbin Hood then he's not much different from your average PC playing free-the-peasents. Who determines who "deserves" to be killed? After all, I could say the King deserves to be killed due to eating meat or fish or whatever and I think that's an abomination. That doesn't make it justified or Good. Just killing someone because they want to kill them is a CE action. Neutral and Lawful evil have their own motivations. And there are easier targets to kill just for the heck of it. Even hired killers have to eat. There's a difference between having levels in the Assassin PrC, and actually making a living as a professional killer-for-hire. Same difference. Even if the character does not have the PrC, they are still being hired to kill by the government. Just because it's the State paying their bill and not a private individual doesn't differentiate that they're killing for a price tag. Must be hard to find good PCs in your games then. At least it would be in every game I've ever played in. And? I was making a fairly general statement to the effect that in most cases the PCs are suposed to be the "good guys". This state of being does not necessarily require being good on the alignment chart. And pray tell how is one a good guy and not good? Being the good guy implies being good - "Good" is one of the two words in the phrase good guy, for crying out loud. Anyway...in your example of the extreme you're undermining my origional assumptions by assuming an evil government (or at least evil person calling the shots). I was assuming at least a neutral employer (assuming employmment of some kind) that would actually allow for a professional killer who could live by a higher moral code (at least as high as someone who kills for a living can claim). So now we're establishing that the professional killer has a high moral code? I see no code for James Bond, who was the example. He is given a mission and he executes it - there's never any philisophical discussion as to who he can and cannot kill. The Liscence to Kill is at his discretion, and his discretion is never called into question. Why, in the beginning of Casino Royale he shoots a man in cold blood on an Embassy's soil for no reason. The man had what Bond wanted, Bond got it, he was surrounded by guards (but the guy in question had no weapon), and Bond blows him away for no apparent reason. Even if that's a quote from the RAW I'm going to disagree. Neutral means neutral. It doesn't mean playing ***-for-tat on the alignment scale. If you're using evil means to do something good you need to choose: are you good or evil? It's not your choice, it's the DM's. As a rule, if you enjoy the evil means it doesn't matter what your ends are. You're evil...or crazy... And I say murdering someone in their bed is evil. So there you go, an assassin using evil means for good purposes = evil. Personally I think it's just a matter of jealous-kid syndrome. Being an evil-required PrC you can't usually take it. Well then I have to ask: you're evil if you take it. So? As I've said previously, a lot of what PCs do is evil. Rogues shank guards in the back all the time. PCs kill NPCs because it's more convenient to leave them alive. That's E-V-I-L. An assassin should fit right in.
Kid SixXx 05-23-07, 05:38 AM	Jesus, arguments about assassins are almost as bad as arguments about the katana. I suppose here is the point where I remind everyone that the assassin PrC in the DMG was orginally suppose to represent the members of a single particular guild in the Greyhawk campaign and not assassins in general. You don't need assassin levels to be considered a de-facto assassin (ie. FR Mage Killer PrC - an "assassin" that specializes in murdering wizards) because it's just a title, but the skill set & class abilities certainly do help make you an efficient killer. Anyone who wants to reason away the alignment restrictions of the Assassin PrC will find a way to do so, so there is no reason bringing up real-world analagies to block their single-minded fury. And I hate it when "alignment is an unfair restriction!" enters into the argument. Alignment is nothing more than a tool to aid roleplay and gauge morality. Alignment should indeed help guide the direction of a character's actions, but it shouldn't be the sole motivator that forces PC's to do idiotic things. Lawful Stupid (LG) and I Don't Have To Say I'm Sorry Cause I'm Crazy (CN) are the worst played alignments in the game.
Cifer 05-23-07, 09:42 AM	Why, in the beginning of Casino Royale he shoots a man in cold blood on an Embassy's soil for no reason. The man had what Bond wanted, Bond got it, he was surrounded by guards (but the guy in question had no weapon), and Bond blows him away for no apparent reason. How about "He's a terrorist/bomb maker"? Who determines who "deserves" to be killed? After all, I could say the King deserves to be killed due to eating meat or fish or whatever and I think that's an abomination. That doesn't make it justified or Good. Just killing someone because they want to kill them is a CE action. Neutral and Lawful evil have their own motivations. And there are easier targets to kill just for the heck of it. Now you've discovered relativism. I congratulate you, yet still remind you that you should either leave it out of the game or kick out the alignments altogether. They don't mix well.
Rechan 05-23-07, 05:25 PM	How about "He's a terrorist/bomb maker"? And Bond's a hired assassin. Point? Now you've discovered relativism. I congratulate you, yet still remind you that you should either leave it out of the game or kick out the alignments altogether. They don't mix well. I would prefer to kick it out all together. The only problem is that if you do that, it utterly buggers the magic system to a certain degree. Certain spells become useless. The planes of Law/Chaos/Evil/Good are also kind've undoable, as is fighting demons - how do you have a Good weapon when there's no alignment, etc. But then, we're in Eberron where things are a lot less Cut and Dry than just plain ol white hats and black hats. Moral relativism should fit fine in Eberron.
taski 05-23-07, 07:06 PM	I would prefer to kick it out all together. The only problem is that if you do that, it utterly buggers the magic system to a certain degree. Certain spells become useless. The planes of Law/Chaos/Evil/Good are also kind've undoable, as is fighting demons - how do you have a Good weapon when there's no alignment, etc. But then, we're in Eberron where things are a lot less Cut and Dry than just plain ol white hats and black hats. Moral relativism should fit fine in Eberron. When my group did remove alignment, we didn't do it completely, leaving Outsiders and the Planes as they were. Immortal manifestations of whoknowswhat have a strict, alien mindset compared to those of inconstant, hypocritical, free-willed mortals. The items and spells that rely on alignment can still be useful, just on a smaller set of beings. You don't have to address every little spell and item right away, either, just wait and see if it ever comes up (it might not!). Paladins do drop in power, but an easy fix is to let their alignment-dependent stuff also work on a group or two from the "favored enemy" list. But, again, that doesn't matter if no one wants to play a paladin in the first place.
Kid SixXx 05-24-07, 07:15 AM	And Bond's a hired assassin. Point? Point is that the man that Bond shot dead was a freelance terrorist for hire, & Bond at least has the backings of a legitimate body of authority and is not a hired assassin. Bond serves at the whim of MI-6 and the British government. As the old addage goes, assassination is the highest form of public service. Additionally, I seem to recall the man Bond shot in cold blood shooting several construction workers & local police officers in cold blood while attempting to elude Bond. I suppose it is a moot point to mention that Bond's orders were actually to take the man in alive for questioning which sorta gets in the way of Bond solely serving the in the capacity of hired assassin, or the instances in the novels (and wonderfully adopted to the Casino Royale movie) where the things Bond is asked to do in service to Queen & country actually gnaw at his moral fiber as if to parallel.... a conflict between chosen class and aligmment maybe? Once non-game examples are used to justify something that happens in-game, the argument becomes mere semantics and conjecture. It's fun to discuss these issues but they in no way reflect on the mechanical issues you folks are trying to address, nor will they solve them. That being said, given the numerous examples of possibly non-evil, honorable assassins or assassin's guilds in games, literature, or film (The Morag Tong from the Elder Scrolls games, The "Lone Wolf" Ogami Itto, "John" from the movie The Replacement Killers, Ghost Dog, ad nauseaum) it shouldn't be too hard to meta-reason doing away with the evil pre-req for the Assassin PrC or tinkering with it to make it less dark and accessible for non-evil types.
Cifer 05-24-07, 12:40 PM	I would prefer to kick it out all together. The only problem is that if you do that, it utterly buggers the magic system to a certain degree. Certain spells become useless. The planes of Law/Chaos/Evil/Good are also kind've undoable, as is fighting demons - how do you have a Good weapon when there's no alignment, etc. Then we've got Smite [Enemy of the faith], where you discuss with your DM what fits that bill before gaming.
Rechan 05-24-07, 01:29 PM	Point is that the man that Bond shot dead was a freelance terrorist for hire, & Bond at least has the backings of a legitimate body of authority and is not a hired assassin. Bond serves at the whim of MI-6 and the British government. As the old addage goes, assassination is the highest form of public service. Additionally, I seem to recall the man Bond shot in cold blood shooting several construction workers & local police officers in cold blood while attempting to elude Bond. Even so, that doesn't really establish that Bond's actions were inherently good; it's just one type of criminal killing another. Bond's bosses are just more recognized. But after all, governments can employ bomb makers and the like. And as you so point out, his orders were to bring him in alive. Bond chose to kill him. Once non-game examples are used to justify something that happens in-game, the argument becomes mere semantics and conjecture. It's fun to discuss these issues but they in no way reflect on the mechanical issues you folks are trying to address, nor will they solve them. Indeed. This is why I said on the first page that using RL to explain alignment can get really hairy real fast. Not only will it solve nothing but to really muck up the issue, but then you get people getting offended or very passionate about things (like my example of the Death Penalty).
gelalshawr 05-24-07, 03:05 PM	I have to agree with Rechan on this, Bond is a cold-blooded murderer and womanizer, he's not a good person. but neither is he inherently evil. He is most emphatically one of the "good guys" but so is my true neutral bard, just because his alignment isn't good doesn't mean he's not a good guy.
Kid SixXx 05-24-07, 03:05 PM	Even so, that doesn't really establish that Bond's actions were inherently good; it's just one type of criminal killing another. So you're saying that Bond chasing down a lead to a renegade banker who manufactured disasters to pad his stock portfolio & finance terrorists who also murdered innocent people is evil. And as you so point out, his orders were to bring him in alive. Bond chose to kill him. Because the Bomb Maker no longer served his purpose. Bond got the lead he needed from the guy's cell phone. One less terrorist in the world is one less terrorist, despite M chastising Bond about not seeing "the big picture." I have to agree with Rechan on this, Bond is a cold-blooded murderer and womanizer, he's not a good person. but neither is he inherently evil. He is most emphatically one of the "good guys" but so is my true neutral bard, just because his alignment isn't good doesn't mean he's not a good guy. You folks make it sound like Bond writes his own rules, but he doesn't. Bond's license to kill can be revoked, so he is an assassin serving at the whim of M and the British government. He is the aforementioned blunt instrument mentioned in the thread title. If anything, it's his superiors that are technically the engineers of death; Bond merely carries out the writs. As for being cold-blooded, that sorta comes with the territory doesn't it? How good would Bond be at eliminating threats to world security (or what good would he be to the governments of the free world) if he is incapable of pulling the triggger because of empathy or sympathy with the enemy (see Crying Freeman)? Again, the common thread running through several Bond novels is the notion that Bond would love nothing more to quit, but it's easier said than done. Bond becomes an alcoholic and an amnesiac in the novels in the course of dealing with the amorality of his profession. Womanizing I suppose comes with the territory since the Bond novels tend to be rather misogynistic, but seduction in the course of gathering information on your enemy certainly does reduce relative bloodshed.
gelalshawr 05-24-07, 03:07 PM	So you're saying that Bond chasing down a lead to a renegade banker who manufactured disasters to pad his stock portfolio & finance terrorists who also murdered innocent people is evil. no, just that he's not good Because the Bomb Maker no longer served his purpose. Bond got the lead he needed from the guy's cell phone. so, because he had "served his purpose" means it's ok to kill him?
Kid SixXx 05-24-07, 03:29 PM	no, just that he's not good I agree, but I'm sorta tired of hearing this silly stuff about Bond being a criminal. Whatever Bond does, he ultimately does in service to government, even when he's acting like a loose cannon. so, because he had "served his purpose" means it's ok to kill him? You'd prefer him alive to plant his next bomb in your neighborhood?
gelalshawr 05-24-07, 03:48 PM	You'd prefer him alive to plant his next bomb in your neighborhood? I never said I was good either, but a good person would prefer him alive and in custody where he couldn't do anyone any harm.
Rechan 05-24-07, 04:05 PM	Because the Bomb Maker no longer served his purpose. Bond got the lead he needed from the guy's cell phone. One less terrorist in the world is one less terrorist, despite M chastising Bond about not seeing "the big picture." You could use that justification to kill any criminal from murderer to jaywalker. It doesn't make it a good act. Lawful perhaps, but certainly not good. As for being cold-blooded, that sorta comes with the territory doesn't it? How good would Bond be at eliminating threats to world security (or what good would he be to the governments of the free world) if he is incapable of pulling the triggger because of empathy or sympathy with the enemy (see Crying Freeman)? You're proving time and again my point. If he were Good, he would be more sympathetic.
Kid SixXx 05-24-07, 04:23 PM	You could use that justification to kill any criminal from murderer to jaywalker. It doesn't make it a good act. Lawful perhaps, but certainly not good. 1) Punishment tends to fit the crime. 2) Jaywaking & common murderers are domestic issues. Bond is an agent of MI-6, so dealing with those crimes would be out of his jurisdiction. 3) Name a film where you've seen Bond gun down a jaywalker. You're proving time and again my point. If he were Good, he would be more sympathetic. Since when is complete sympathy a pre-req for goodness? Bond certainly isn't a likeable fellow in the course of doing his duty, but that is to be expected. And he certainly was compassionate towards Vesper in those sappy, uber-romantic beach scenes everyone loves to hate, so it's not like Bond is completely heartless. I never said I was good either, but a good person would prefer him alive and in custody where he couldn't do anyone any harm. People break out of prisons but they tend not to break out of caskets unless it's a fantasy setting.
Rechan 05-24-07, 04:29 PM	1) Punishment tends to fit the crime. 2) Jaywaking & common murderers are domestic issues. Bond is an agent of MI-6, so dealing with those crimes would be out of his jurisdiction. 1) Punishment fits the laws that dictate. Executing criminals without trials is not justice. 2) And unless this guy bombed British agents, then it's also out of his jurisdiction. Since when is complete sympathy a pre-req for goodness? Bond certainly isn't a likeable fellow in the course of doing his duty, but that is to be expected. Since Good is, well, Good. People break out of prisons but they tend not to break out of caskets unless it's a fantasy setting. Because every two-bit criminal will break out of jail. Bond was given the Liscence to kill in the name of King and Country, and executing the bomb maker in cold blood had nothing to do with his duties as an agent of England. His actions are not good. It's as simple as that. You said so yourself: no, just that he's not good I agree, but I'm sorta tired of hearing this silly stuff about Bond being a criminal.
Kid SixXx 05-24-07, 05:45 PM	Executing criminals without trials is not justice. In order to get them to trial you have to capture them. Bond villains tend not to like being captured to the point of hiring henchmen with machine guns. So Bond is not supposed to fire back in the course of defending world security or himself? 2) And unless this guy bombed British agents, then it's also out of his jurisdiction. If he bombed British agents domestically in the UK, then I'd imagine that it'd still be partially out of his jurisdiction unless the bomber fled outside of the country. Since Good is, well, Good. So good is also supposed to be naive, as in Lawful Stupid? Since sympathy is a part of being good, I guess Bond should've given the bomb maker a hug, listened to the bomb maker's manifesto on the evils of the West, and then negotiated the bomb maker's surrender... as the bomb maker fired 9mm rounds from his Glock 17 in Bond's general direction. Bond was given the Liscence to kill in the name of King and Country, and executing the bomb maker in cold blood had nothing to do with his duties as an agent of England. Why are you continuing to single out the execution of the bomb maker as an example of evil? What about the people that Bond could've killed, but had the wits & disciple not to (ie. the embassy staff, the diplomat, the embassy guard), in the course of killing a bomb maker going to an embassy for the sole purpose of seeking asylum / evading capture and living to kill again another day? And a bomb maker who killed plenty of innocent people in the attempt to evade Bond (who genuinely wanted to take the bomb maker alive until he got hold of the bomb maker's satchel & learned of Le Chifre's plot without having to question the bomb maker). His actions are not good. It's as simple as that. You said so yourself: Yes, but you say that his actions are evil & that Bond is a criminal, to which I strongly disagree.
gelalshawr 05-24-07, 06:11 PM	Yes, but you say that his actions are evil & that Bond is a criminal, to which I strongly disagree. Neither of us have said Bond is evil, you are putting words in our mouths that weren't there, all we have said is that he's not good.
Rechan 05-24-07, 06:20 PM	In order to get them to trial you have to capture them. Bond villains tend not to like being captured to the point of hiring henchmen with machine guns. This guy was not a Villain. He was a mook. A pissant. He was not stroking a cat while wielding henchmen and a super weapon at Bond. So Bond is not supposed to fire back in the course of defending world security or himself? Fire back? The guy was unarmed. He was not a threat to Bond. If he bombed British agents domestically in the UK, then I'd imagine that it'd still be partially out of his jurisdiction unless the bomber fled outside of the country. Not what I meant. The British government was not interested in killing him or inprisoning him for attacking England. He had information they wanted. So Bond killing him was not in the best interests of England. If he had detonated bombs to kill Britons, then he would have been a fugitive they wanted, but he was not. So good is also supposed to be naive, as in Lawful Stupid? So you see sympathy as naivety and stupidity? Since sympathy is a part of being good, I guess Bond should've given the bomb maker a hug, listened to the bomb maker's manifesto on the evils of the West, and then negotiated the bomb maker's surrender... as the bomb maker fired 9mm rounds from his Glock 17 in Bond's general direction. Now you're just being facetious. You know damn well that is not what I am implying. Is there a particular reason you're getting bent out of shape? Because I don't think a fictional character is Good? Why are you continuing to single out the execution of the bomb maker as an example of evil? Because it's an evil act. What about the people that Bond could've killed, but had the wits & disciple not to (ie. the embassy staff, the diplomat, the embassy guard), in the course of killing a bomb maker going to an embassy for the sole purpose of seeking asylum / evading capture and living to kill again another day? I'm pretty sure that the gas main exploding probably killed a few of them. And a bomb maker who killed plenty of innocent people in the attempt to evade Bond (who genuinely wanted to take the bomb maker alive until he got hold of the bomb maker's satchel & learned of Le Chifre's plot without having to question the bomb maker). Because he knew that he could have learned Le Chifre's plot by what was in the satchel, right? He knew that the cellphone was in there and there was a link to him? No. He took a chance. The bomb maker's lunch could have been in that satchel for all Bond knew, and if that were the case, he just failed his mission boldly. And I could kill someone who chronically drives drunk because he's going to kill people, but that still isn't a Good act. Yes, but you say that his actions are evil & that Bond is a criminal, to which I strongly disagree. If they're not evil, and you agree they're not good, then what are they? He has a liscence to kill. Killing is pretty much against most laws everywhere. The things that Bond does is criminal. It's criminal activity sanctioned by the government, but no less against the law in general. So techniqually he is a criminal.
Kid SixXx 05-24-07, 07:35 PM	This guy was not a Villain. He was a mook. A pissant. He was not stroking a cat while wielding henchmen and a super weapon at Bond. Pissants are able to organize a gigantic stock market swindle and make hundreds of millions of dollars from an organized catastrophe? Mooks own phat yachts like the one Le Chifre had? So you see sympathy as naivety and stupidity? Bond's naivete certainly was kinda dumb, wasn't it? He thought he could trust Vesper, fell in love, and pretty much handed the money over to the bad guys. Bond was willing to give up his life of killing for Vesper, and very nearly did before he found out he got played for a patsy. Now you're just being facetious. You know damn well that is not what I am implying. Nope, you're implying that somehow an intelligence gatherer and operative of a respected world government is somehow an evil criminal because he ices a terrorist and gets in trouble for it. I'm pretty sure that the gas main exploding probably killed a few of them. How many bodies did you count? Because he knew that he could have learned Le Chifre's plot by what was in the satchel, right? He knew that the cellphone was in there and there was a link to him? No. He took a chance. The bomb maker's lunch could have been in that satchel for all Bond knew, and if that were the case, he just failed his mission boldly. His hunch payed off eh? I suppose that the fact that Bond is a professional is lost on you. Why would Bond have killed the bomb maker if he weren't sure that his assumption weren't true? And I could kill someone who chronically drives drunk Drunk drivers are also terrorists? Drunk Drivers get behind the wheel with the intent to kill as many people as they can? Sure, they are very dangerous people that may as well have intent to kill given their rather deadly negligance, but chronic alcoholics are also treatable if they bother to seek help. Last time I checked, there was no such thing as Terrorists Anonymous. He has a liscence to kill. Killing is pretty much against most laws everywhere. The things that Bond does is criminal. It's criminal activity sanctioned by the government, but no less against the law in general. So techniqually he is a criminal. So soldiers in armies are also criminals, or is war excusible? Generally I definitely agree that Bond is far from a saint (matter of fact, he's misogynist amd one of the worst jingoists in modern literature), but then again saints don't fare to well in his line of work. Bond is not a superhero & prevails merely because he's willing to wreck more havoc than the villains he faces: on this we clearly concur. Machiavellian perhaps, but evil? Nah. There are definitely several examples in the novels and in the movies that clearly show that Bond is not an evil man at heart. The moral of the Bond novels is that the job that takes it's toll on your soul, regardless of how pure you were before you became a double O. Bond loses a wife, his memory, and constantly sacrifices his health in service to Queen and country. He constantly risks his life in service to people he's never met and is liable never to ever meet.
Rechan 05-24-07, 08:42 PM	Pissants are able to organize a gigantic stock market swindle and make hundreds of millions of dollars from an organized catastrophe? Mooks own phat yachts like the one Le Chifre had? ... what? I'm talking about the bomb maker. You said that villains can't be brought to justice, but there was nothing stopping Bond from bringing the bomb maker to justice if he was so important. Bond's naivete certainly was kinda dumb, wasn't it? He thought he could trust Vesper, fell in love, and pretty much handed the money over to the bad guys. Bond was willing to give up his life of killing for Vesper, and very nearly did before he found out he got played for a patsy. That still does not mean that sympathy = naivety. That's your assumption, pal. Nope, you're implying that somehow an intelligence gatherer and operative of a respected world government is somehow an evil criminal because he ices a terrorist and gets in trouble for it. He's an evil criminal because he breaks the law and kills people in cold blood. Working for the government changes nothing. Or do you think that government employees can do no wrong? I guess I should go back to "government trains man to walk into village and kill everyone and that makes it okay because he's got a license to kill and the government told him to do it". How many bodies did you count? After it exploded, the camera panned back to where Bond was, and then it flicked to him hiding in some bushes. It didn't show any dead, but it exploded in the faces of the guards. I think it'd be pretty "naive" to say that no one was hurt in that. His hunch payed off eh? I suppose that the fact that Bond is a professional is lost on you. Why would Bond have killed the bomb maker if he weren't sure that his assumption weren't true? There was no proof for Bond to hunch off. Ergo why he killed him because he's evil. Sure, they are very dangerous people that may as well have intent to kill given their rather deadly negligance, but chronic alcoholics are also treatable if they bother to seek help. Last time I checked, there was no such thing as Terrorists Anonymous. There's not murderers anonymous or rapists anonymous either. Guess we should just shoot them all in the head too, huh? Drunk drivers are dangerous, they can kill people. That's enough for your justification of killing them. Hey, one less drunk driver. So soldiers in armies are also criminals, or is war excusible? I'm pretty sure that when countries go to war, they establish that their soldiers attacking enemy soldiers is legal. A country that wins can't just throw the enemy soldiers in jail for attacking them, after all. But this isn't a war. This is Bond shooting someone in a place where he is, by international laws, safe. The mere act of blowing the guy away on an Embassy was illegal, not to mention the fact that he killed him in the first place. It doesn't matter that he's conflicted, his mental state is not what affects his alignment - it is his actions which are Good or Evil. It is your actions which cause the alignment of your character to shift, not their feelings. Are you getting tired of repeating the same damn thing? Because I sure am. We clearly have different opinions as to what is Good and Evil. But just saying "He's evil" "He's not" is really getting aggravating. You're not going to change my opinion and I'm clearly not going to change yours.
Kid SixXx 05-25-07, 07:07 AM	... what? I'm talking about the bomb maker. You said that villains can't be brought to justice, but there was nothing stopping Bond from bringing the bomb maker to justice if he was so important. The info MI-6 assumed he had was important, not the bomb maker himself. And I'd say that the dozen or so soldiers with machine guns trained on Bond were quite the obstacle to any effort to bring the bomb maker in to justice. Even so, if Bond somehow miraculously succeeded in taking the bomb maker alive, the events were on camera anyway so arguably MI-6 would've gotten grilled for kidnapping instead of murder. The PR fiasco following the embassy gambit pretty much dissolved any potential "justice" available for the bomb maker to face. And yes, the responsibility for that falls directly in Bond's lap. He's an evil criminal because he breaks the law and kills people in cold blood. Still we harp on the single bomb maker and not the other people involved. If Bond wanted a bloodbath, then why did he only apparently bother to kill the bomb maker. Certainly Bond had the opportunity to kill that ambassador that set of the silent alarm, and anyone else who happened to witness the events. But he didn't did he? Working for the government changes nothing. Or do you think that government employees can do no wrong? When did I imply that? The whole WMD fiasco in Iraq proves that governments can do plenty of wrong. I guess I should go back to "government trains man to walk into village and kill everyone and that makes it okay because he's got a license to kill and the government told him to do it". You keep forgetting about the whole "and find out who is financing the terrorist" part at the end. After it exploded, the camera panned back to where Bond was, and then it flicked to him hiding in some bushes. It didn't show any dead, but it exploded in the faces of the guards. I think it'd be pretty "naive" to say that no one was hurt in that. So you didn't count any other dead. That works for me. There's not murderers anonymous or rapists anonymous either. I'm pleased to see that at least you've progressed from examples of folks committing misdemeanors (jaywalkers) and people that could benefit from professional aid (drunk drivers) to obviously unsavory criminals to support your argument. Even so, it's apples to oranges. No one sends intelligence gatherers or spies to deal with murderers and rapists. That's a job for the police. I'm pretty sure that when countries go to war, they establish that their soldiers attacking enemy soldiers is legal. A country that wins can't just throw the enemy soldiers in jail for attacking them, after all. GITMO? Are you getting tired of repeating the same damn thing? Yep. Hopefully everyone else gets the point that all of this bickering about Bond hasn't changed the dynamics of the mechanics of the Assassin PrC one iota. All of the debated literary pros & cons of what makes up an "assassin", quoting of real-world analogies, getting completely sidetracked, and yet the pre-req for the PrC in the DMG is still evil and is likely to remain so. Those who believe in "honorable assassins" or "good assassins" will remove the pre-req at their leisure, or tinker with the PrC, and won't break anyone else's game. Those that think that killing for cause of money is evil will keep the PrC as it is, and any debate about the pre-req that utilizes anything other than the mechanics of the game is pretty much pointless. Thanks for your help, Rechan.
Rechan 05-25-07, 11:45 AM	All of the debated literary pros & cons of what makes up an "assassin", quoting of real-world analogies, getting completely sidetracked, and yet the pre-req for the PrC in the DMG is still evil and is likely to remain so. As it was pointed out elsewhere in the thread, the PrC in the DMG is for a specific organization in the Greyhawk campaign setting. They just sadly labelled it as just "The Assassin" instead of something like the "Bloodknives Assassin" or something else. Considering now none of the others were for a specific org, it's annoying. But yes, our arguemnt was a derailment - because I have an honorary degree in Devil's Advocacy and I like to argue. :devil: Those who believe in "honorable assassins" or "good assassins" will remove the pre-req at their leisure, or tinker with the PrC, and won't break anyone else's game. Those that think that killing for cause of money is evil will keep the PrC as it is, and any debate about the pre-req that utilizes anything other than the mechanics of the game is pretty much pointless. Pretty much. It's basically arguing over house rules and theory. DMs are pretty contankerous and defensive as to what's going to go into their game Their games are their babies, and they want to defend them. It's up there with "Do female dwarves have beards" as One of Those Arguments.